masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Chat Live! Policy Revision
The current chat policy has been active for around a month, and has resulted in practical absence of activity in the Live! Chat and lack of increased participation by new editors. While it was assumed that new editors would be encouraged to make the required 20 edits in order to unlock the Chat rights, so far this hasn't been the case. In order to encourage greater participation in the wiki mainspace by the new editors, this policy amendment changes the edit threshold if passed. Instead of 20 mainspace edits required over a fixed two-week period with an edit made every other day, 5 mainspace edits would initially unlock Chat for a week without any more editing needing to be done until one week passes, at which point they won't be allowed to use the Chat until a total of 20 valid mainspace edits has been obtained. If the user has already made all 20 edits before one-week period expires, they're free to continue to use Chat, provided that they know and obey the rules for chat conduct. Voting Support 1. As proposer. 4Ferelden (talk) 10:36, February 11, 2013 (UTC) Neutral #See below.--Legionwrex (talk) 15:24, February 11, 2013 (UTC) Against # Said it before, and I'll say it again. This is no way a solution. Phantom Bootie Slap (talk) 10:46, February 11, 2013 (UTC) # See below --DeldiRe 15:58, February 11, 2013 (UTC) # This alternative policy isn't any better than the previous. I would prefer LegionWrex's solution over this. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 16:48, February 11, 2013 (UTC) #While a revote would help ease the whole Mass Defect drama, this is not a solution. BeoW0lfe (talk) 17:47, February 11, 2013 (UTC) # See below Avg Man (talk) 21:18, February 11, 2013 (UTC) # The problem isn't the edits to use chat, simply that Chat is being abused. Remove the edit requirement and get to the source of managing the chat effectivelyGarhdo (talk) 04:32, February 12, 2013 (UTC) # Not a solution. -Algol- (talk) 21:28, February 12, 2013 (UTC) # You lost me at "then it locks again and they need 20 edits". (paraphrased, obviously...) SpartHawg948 (talk) 08:07, February 13, 2013 (UTC) Discussion As stated above, the current policy unfortunately hasn't brought in new mainspace edits and while the disorderly activity in Chat! might be gone, so has the civil use. However, I'm against totally dismantling it as has been proposed by some users recently, largely because I feel that there aren't enough mainspace edits, but also since we cannot expect a true consensus on the issue in this community by completely ignoring one side of the argument. This policy change would encourage more people to use chat, as they get to use it sooner and would be able to appreciate its benefits over the week-long period before they're asked to make the remainder of the edits. Splitting the edit threshold also makes it easier to accept simply due to the way our brain handles numbers. All in all, we are likely to see Chat become once-again active and see our already detailed database edited further. 4Ferelden (talk) 10:36, February 11, 2013 (UTC) Lets not jump the gun here. Did Spart contact you and ask you to create this policy? Because to my knowledge the admins were still working on it. So for now, until I can get a bit of confirmation here, I'm going to vote neutral.--Legionwrex (talk) 15:24, February 11, 2013 (UTC) Before I vote, I'd like to ask the proposer a question: Short version: This? Really? Extended version: Do you honestly believe this would work? Can't you see that this only brings a cosmetic change to one of the consequences of the problem, but doesn't even scratch the surface of the real problem? -Algol- (talk) 15:54, February 11, 2013 (UTC) : Can you please be more specific as to what you consider to be the real problem? Thank you in advance. 4Ferelden (talk) 06:35, February 12, 2013 (UTC) I agree with LegionWrex. We should wait for a new proposition and then we will start the discussion. Moreover, your proposition seems to be way too complicate and it will not solve the previous problems. We don't need a complicate mechanism just to decide on the easy issue "who can use a chat". Nevertheless, thank you to propose your idea on this topic.--DeldiRe 15:58, February 11, 2013 (UTC) : Thank you for being polite on this divisive matter. However, as I have said both above in the proposition and below in the reply to Avg Man's comment, the current system is actually more complicated, essentially requiring admins/CMs to check prospect user's contributions every two days over two-week period. 4Ferelden (talk) 06:35, February 12, 2013 (UTC) I agree with Algol, to the point that I don't even think it's worth me voting... But then I can't see why a proposal that is overwhelmingly rejected by a qualified majority is still accepted as policy. And I don't see why there is a need for a compromise, a party in the House of Commons doesn't ask the opposition for a compromise if they have enough MPs to pass it on their own. Can this not be the case of what the majority vote for, the majority get? 19/4 is hardly a 'small' majority now is it, nor is 10/7. Alexsau1991 (talk page) 18:04, February 11, 2013 (UTC) : OK, you have brought up a similar point before on -Algol-'s blog and I replied to it there, but I believe it warrants repition: neither Wikipedia nor Wikia were designed as pure democracies, and Wikipedia openly says that here and here. To those unwilling to see the links, I'm quoting an particularly relevant section from the latter: :Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes," most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis on consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. In summary, polling is not a substitute for discussion. '' : So I hope this answers your question as to why there is a need for compromise. You might not agree with this system, but it nevertheless remains the basis of this site. 4Ferelden (talk) 06:35, February 12, 2013 (UTC) Here is a solution for you: '''Increase the number of chat moderators'. And that would be it. No edit restrictions on chat use. Because you can't really coerce people into editing this way. -Algol- (talk) 19:53, February 11, 2013 (UTC) To sum up my thoughts rather quickly: While we need to do something to resolve this mess (for lack of a better term), your solution is essentially what we have currently, only more complicated to check. So, until we get something from LegionWrex, Lancer, or Spart (who lately seems to be the most reasonable admin about this mess), I'm going have to say no. Avg Man (talk) 21:17, February 11, 2013 (UTC) :....You guys do realize I'm not an admin right, I'm just a Senior Editor, which is one step above CM.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:23, February 11, 2013 (UTC) ::. Meant that as "The guys(?) who're more likely to come up with a reasonable(ish) plan/policy". I think I just lumped you in there due to how this whole debacle started and the consequent reactions. Let's face it, popular or not, you 3 know what you're doing. Avg Man (talk) 23:49, February 11, 2013 (UTC) :: While it's true that admins have currently remained non-committal on this, I believe that it's unfair to say that this version of the policy is more complicated to check. As I have stated above and as shown in the original forum Notes here, th current policy doesn't just demand 20 mainspace edits but also forces the user to edit at least every two days for two weeks in order to unlock the Chat. Effectively, admins/CMs would have to look at the user contributions every two days during that two-week period in order to see whether or not the edits are spread out as required. In contrast, under my proposition a CM would simply have to check the user's contributions once to see whether they have five valid edits, then check back a week later to see if they have 20 valid edits or not. It is much simpler and also lets prospective users access chat sooner during the one-week period, thus encouraging them to stay. 4Ferelden (talk) 06:35, February 12, 2013 (UTC) I got a brilliant idea - disband the chat completely. Won't be any problems then. --Kainzorus Prime Walkie-talkie 22:41, February 11, 2013 (UTC) :Curing a headache with a beheading. It is pretty much the current situation. The chat is there, but nobody uses it, so you can safely consider it non-existent:) -Algol- (talk) 22:48, February 11, 2013 (UTC) 4Ferelden, i agree that it will not be more hard to manage for the moderators but this proposition will be hard to understand for the new comers. And one week for 15 edits seems to be really short if you want quality --DeldiRe 09:16, February 12, 2013 (UTC) "Can you please be more specific as to what you consider to be the real problem? Thank you in advance" Okay, if that question even arises, then I'll definitely vote against, just in case. Done. Now, back to answering the question. The real problem here is that any number of mainspace edits shouldn't even be here in the first place. It's a purely artificial and pointless restriction, that doesn't differ much from the current state of affairs (meaning the dead chat). You cannot coerce people to edit. The only number of edits a user needs is a single one, anywhere, in order to be familiar with the policies. And increasing the number of chat moderators will help dealing with troublemakers more efficiently. -Algol- (talk) 21:27, February 12, 2013 (UTC) :The problem with that is that, honestly, we can't even be sure if said CMs will enforce site policy. Honestly speaking, most of the people who have suggested to be CM as a way to solve this problem are the same people who disagree with many of this site's policies, the language policy being the biggest. I can envision them letting that stuff slide, and the only way to be sure is to have an admin on to constantly monitor, but that is one of the problems this policy is trying to fix in the first place.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:34, February 12, 2013 (UTC) ::To answer Legionwrex's initial question, no. I had no knowledge of this until just a few minutes ago. SpartHawg948 (talk) 08:09, February 13, 2013 (UTC) ::: What?! I thought I have clearly stated that I decided to open this forum on your talk page two days ago! Anyhow, can you please elaborate more on the "against" vote? I have edited the description somewhat in case it has been confusing before (i.e. by "locked", I meant that they won't be allowed to use chat anymore until the 20-edit criteria has been met.) I mean, after all, you have repeatedly stated in the original discussion that 20 edits is a modest thing to ask for... 4Ferelden (talk) 09:20, February 13, 2013 (UTC) ::::Allow me to rephrase - I didn't recall hearing of it prior to a few minutes ago. That's my bad. I remember your post on my talk page, but had initially skimmed it, and then when I re-read it I was a bit miffed by your "no response of any kind" comment. It's been a bit hectic of late what with the vote redo discussions and all. As for my vote, I dislike the idea of temporary usage only to then have the chat locked again until they hit 20 edits. Either it should be permanent access at 5 or at 20. I'm not crazy about dangling it temporarily only to take it away. It's not about the number of edits. Additionally, once voting has commenced, please refrain from making any edits to the proposal. SpartHawg948 (talk) 10:35, February 13, 2013 (UTC)